New discussion forum?

[Oblia]

Peter Damian (T-C-L) has invited Sitush (T-C-L) to join a "new forum" about Wikipedia. Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =680811404 I'm on my phone now. Anyone else want to check it out?

[Vigilant]

Peter Damian (T-C-L) has invited Sitush (T-C-L) to join a "new forum" about Wikipedia. Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =680811404 I'm on my phone now. Anyone else want to check it out?

they should name it OffWiki 3.0

[Zoloft]

I'm a member.
Like any new-born baby it's impossible to tell right now if it's going to amount to anything or not.

[Kelly Martin]

The more the merrier. But until they actually have content that can be viewed when not logged in, their site will never progress beyond being an mutual backrub service center. However, I suspect that's actually what they want right now.

Perhaps once they get past being upset at us for not working hard enough to publish their book, they can move on and actually do something meaningful. Time will tell, I suppose.

[The Joy]

I'm a member.
Like any new-born baby it's impossible to tell right now if it's going to amount to anything or not.

I'm in as well, though I can't tell if they are enthusiastic about having me or not.

[The Devil's Advocate]

Perhaps once they get past being upset at us for not working hard enough to publish their book, they can move on and actually do something meaningful. Time will tell, I suppose.

I am curious if they have given up on the book or not. For Damian it might create complications for him now that he is back on Wikipedia given the book's content, but I'm not sure how they would approach that if it were professionally published.

[Poetlister]

I am curious if they have given up on the book or not. For Damian it might create complications for him now that he is back on Wikipedia given the book's content, but I'm not sure how they would approach that if it were professionally published.

If it's published by someone respectable and not a vanity press, it might be deemed a Reliable Source.

[Malleus]

I'm a member.
Like any new-born baby it's impossible to tell right now if it's going to amount to anything or not.

I'm in as well, though I can't tell if they are enthusiastic about having me or not.

You're almost certainly more welcome there than I am here.

[Zoloft]

I'm a member.
Like any new-born baby it's impossible to tell right now if it's going to amount to anything or not.

I'm in as well, though I can't tell if they are enthusiastic about having me or not.

You're almost certainly more welcome there than I am here.

Hey, I have considerable baggage. I'm just trying to make astute observations and lie low. Or is that lay low?

[JCM]

Well, I'm not sure if I will get approved of course, but I've registered. Granted, I think I was with Offwiki too, for all the good that did. I wonder how many of the rarely posting lurkers might be registering as well.

[MMAR]

Any forum that would specifically invite Sitush to join as if he has ever in his life said anything about Wikipedia or Wikipedians that was remotely informed, is obviously not worth joining. It's not like it doesn't take two minutes to figure out what his deal is. His latest idiocy on the Gamergate page has to be seen to be believed, and yet there it is, emanating from him like the gospel truth, as if he who would ever actually pass some kind of 'elite contributor' test set by independent adjudicators.

He'd fail question 1 - what is NPOV and how do you achieve it? A: Right, well, you chuck out all the left wing op-eds for a start, grrr feminists grrr, then if that doesn't fix it, you delete the article until such time as academic papers have been written that conform to my personal view of what this whole 'gamergate' thing is about, because, well, NOTNEWS. AmIRight? Stay away from me BERNSTEEEIIINNN!!!! I'll take you to arbcom as soon as look at you. Honest. I will. I know I said that last month, and I meant it then to. Just give me some time, I'm suffering side effects from my medication that the WMF proscribed me because I was such a hero fighting that thing that I can't talk about but which you know was super-important and, what, hey, me? write a biography about an on-wiki opponent? that doesn't sound like something I'd do, I was set up, it was a feminist conspiracy I tell you, I'm the victim, I'm ALWAYS the victim goddam you!, hey, come back, I didn't even get to answer question 1 yet!

This patronizing gem was part of his response to a jaded GG editor who was unlucky enough to be on scene when he first arrived, and tried to direct him to one of the bazillion archive pages that had already addressed his tedious opening gambit (oh hey guys, why doesn't the article say who coined #Gamergate?) by ending inconclusively in a shitty, incomprehensible 'compromise', because, well, Wikipedia!

Think of me as someone who doesn't know the talk page exists and is trying to use WP for the purpose for which it was intended, ie: to gain knowledge

Yeahright.

[The Joy]

I'm a member.
Like any new-born baby it's impossible to tell right now if it's going to amount to anything or not.

I'm in as well, though I can't tell if they are enthusiastic about having me or not.

You're almost certainly more welcome there than I am here.

Well, to my knowledge, you're still welcome and able to post on Wikipedia Review. All I did was talk about having multiple Wikipedia criticism sites (like this site and Peter's) and I was accused, tried, and sentenced for "trying to destroy WR." I'm "muted," meaning I can see all the posts, but if I try to post or send a PM, I get a "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!"-style message. She-Who-I-Shall-Not-Name also deleted my signature when I start posting "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" messages there. She could post dirty limericks about me on the forum and I couldn't do a darn thing about it. It's the closest to my understanding of being banned from Wikipedia. At least I can't see her publicly dancing on my proverbial grave like one can on Wikipedia.

I'm not sure if Peter Damian and the founders meant for their forum to get as much attention as it is getting now. I hope I was not invited out of pity.

[Malleus]

You can take consolation from the fact that I wasn't invited to join Peter's site.

[JCM]

You can take consolation from the fact that I wasn't invited to join Peter's site.

I wasn't either. I registered anyway of course.

Oh, and Malleus, sorry if you took any comments regarding Borley from me as in any way personal. That wasn't my intention.

[Midsize Jake]

At least I can't see her publicly dancing on my proverbial grave like one can on Wikipedia.

Naah, she's completely lost interest I'm afraid. Drops by every six months or so, checks around for any mention of "Wikipediocracy" or "WPO," deletes all such posts, then no sign for another six months. Probably doesn't look at the registration or moderation queues at all, I would imagine.

Oh well!

[Malleus]

You can take consolation from the fact that I wasn't invited to join Peter's site.

I wasn't either. I registered anyway of course.

Oh, and Malleus, sorry if you took any comments regarding Borley from me as in any way personal. That wasn't my intention.

Not in the slightest. In fact I'm intending to make a small addition to the article soon to include one of your suggestions, although it will have to be carefully worded to avoid the kind of nonsense we recently saw among the Fringe Theory kiddies.

[Vigilant]

I'm waiting for my invitation.

[SB_Johnny]

Perhaps once they get past being upset at us for not working hard enough to publish their book, they can move on and actually do something meaningful. Time will tell, I suppose.

I am curious if they have given up on the book or not. For Damian it might create complications for him now that he is back on Wikipedia given the book's content, but I'm not sure how they would approach that if it were professionally published.

Do you really think Peter cares more about what the Wikipediots think of him than he does about telling the story of Wikipedia?

He's not like you.

[Zoloft]

Peter Damian has what some people back at the mothership might consider an 'inconvenient case of integrity.'

[Cedric]

Perhaps once they get past being upset at us for not working hard enough to publish their book, they can move on and actually do something meaningful. Time will tell, I suppose.

Incidentally, none of us here ever made any promises in that regard because we were in no position to make such promises.

Peter Damian has what some people back at the mothership might consider an 'inconvenient case of integrity.'

True that.

[Cla68]

I am curious if they have given up on the book or not. For Damian it might create complications for him now that he is back on Wikipedia given the book's content, but I'm not sure how they would approach that if it were professionally published.

If it's published by someone respectable and not a vanity press, it might be deemed a Reliable Source.

Definitely, there are several Wikipedia account names that will probably have Wikipedia articles started on them as soon as that book gets published.

[Bielle]

I invited myself. The request took about 24 hours to be approved, so perhaps I am a probationer of sorts. At the time, I liked all the people who were involved; I've been back a couple of times to see what was new. There would be one or two updating posts, but not much else so far. Like Zoloft, I am interested in seeing if this takes off among the "save Wikipedia" crowd.

[The Devil's Advocate]

Do you really think Peter cares more about what the Wikipediots think of him than he does about telling the story of Wikipedia?

He's not like you.

Just wondering since he did want his ban lifted, in part to clear his name and in part to actually contribute to the site, and he was finally successful after many years.

[Midsize Jake]

Just wondering since he did want his ban lifted, in part to clear his name and in part to actually contribute to the site, and he was finally successful after many years.

As I recall, those weren't his stated reasons. His main stated reason was that it simply made both him and Wikipedia look bad (I think the term he used was "stupid" or "silly," I forget which) to have a very well-known and well-respected expert in medieval history and philosophy with a "banned" template on his user page. I think there were a few things he wanted to fix right off the bat (and apparently he has now fixed those things), but not so much after that other than occasional corrections - no new articles or rewrites, for example.

He might prefer to clarify this himself, of course.

[Vigilant]

I bet Wil Sinclair and Abd would be very interested in joining.

[Kelly Martin]

I bet Wil Sinclair and Abd would be very interested in joining.

If they do, I might as well, simply to be able to watch the fireworks.

[Peter Damian]

Perhaps once they get past being upset at us for not working hard enough to publish their book, they can move on and actually do something meaningful. Time will tell, I suppose.

I had no expectations that anyone here would help publish the book. (With the exception of Zoloft perhaps, who has contacts in the trade).

The book had a number of near misses, including Simon and Schuster. There were a lot of worries about libel. My own publisher (CUA) was initially very interested then I sent them chap. 20, see the introduction below. They said they couldn't include material like that, I refused to compromise, and that was the end of it.

I have not attempted to market it for a year now. This has nothing to do with anything on this forum.

LONDON – 2010

Porn is not really different from, say, your mother’s holiday photos – Erik Moeller.

She stared at the page with a mixture of horror and disbelief. The blog mentioned a new misogynistic sexual practice. Donkey punch. Was it for real? Supposedly ‘fucking someone in the ass and then punching them hard in the back of the head or neck, so that the sudden pain and/or unconsciousness causes the asshole to constract spasmodically”. How could there be a spasmodic contraction? “To the best of my knowledge, there is no definitive reflex in the human neurophysiology that induces involuntary tightening of the anal sphincter after receiving blunt-force trauma to the back of the head”, said Dr. Jeffrey Bahr of the Medical College of Wisconsin. And who is someone, anyway? Oh right, a woman. A quick Google on ‘porn donkey punch’ returned half a million hits, with plenty of links, and plenty of female-hating commentary. The porn videos, at least on the first couple of pages of hits, linked to women, the Urban Dictionary definitions centred – gleefully, hatefully – on women. The act may have been an invention, but there was still the abuse and degradation of the woman at play, so there was still plenty in it for misogynist little fuckers, she thought.

Was this really a real thing in the world. Really? She looked up the Wikipedia entry for ‘donkey punch’. And lo, she was greeted by a cartoon of a man in doggie-style position over a woman with his fist drawn back. To her shock, the cartoon started to move, and she watched, horrified, as the man punched the woman in the back of the head. The woman’s neck snapped back, a couple of little black marks shot out to illustrate impact, and she grimaced painfully. The animation did it over and over and over again.

It affected her so deeply that she burst into tears and slammed the lid of her laptop. It’s not that she hadn’t seen uglier things. “It was that sexualized violence against women is now so normalized that somehow, it’s deemed appropriate to graphically illustrate it on fucking Wikipedia”. She was a woman living in a misogynist world, “a world I’ve watched grow only more deeply misogynist over the course of my adult life”.

[Jim]

I had no expectations that anyone here would help publish the book. (With the exception of Zoloft perhaps, who has contacts in the trade).

Well, my membership hasn't been approved. So that's me told.

[Vigilant]

I had no expectations that anyone here would help publish the book. (With the exception of Zoloft perhaps, who has contacts in the trade).

Well, my membership hasn't been approved. So that's me told.

You didn't sign up as "Jimbo Wales" again, did you?

[JCM]

I had no expectations that anyone here would help publish the book. (With the exception of Zoloft perhaps, who has contacts in the trade).

Well, my membership hasn't been approved. So that's me told.

Ditto here. Waaah.

[Poetlister]

Perhaps once they get past being upset at us for not working hard enough to publish their book, they can move on and actually do something meaningful. Time will tell, I suppose.

I am curious if they have given up on the book or not. For Damian it might create complications for him now that he is back on Wikipedia given the book's content, but I'm not sure how they would approach that if it were professionally published.

Do you really think Peter cares more about what the Wikipediots think of him than he does about telling the story of Wikipedia?

He's not like you.

I always find it amusing when a sysop and bureaucrat with over 28,000 edits across WMF sites calls his fellow wikipedia insiders "Wikipediots".

[Konveyor Belt]

Perhaps once they get past being upset at us for not working hard enough to publish their book, they can move on and actually do something meaningful. Time will tell, I suppose.

I am curious if they have given up on the book or not. For Damian it might create complications for him now that he is back on Wikipedia given the book's content, but I'm not sure how they would approach that if it were professionally published.

Do you really think Peter cares more about what the Wikipediots think of him than he does about telling the story of Wikipedia?

He's not like you.

I always find it amusing when a sysop and bureaucrat with over 28,000 edits across WMF sites calls his fellow wikipedia insiders "Wikipediots".

Well they are, to be fair. They are all idiots.

[SB_Johnny]

I had no expectations that anyone here would help publish the book. (With the exception of Zoloft perhaps, who has contacts in the trade).

Well, my membership hasn't been approved. So that's me told.

I signed up. They surely dislike me more than you, so we'll see.

[SB_Johnny]

I always find it amusing when a sysop and bureaucrat with over 28,000 edits across WMF sites calls his fellow wikipedia insiders "Wikipediots".

Not a lot of edits this decade for me. I bet you have lots of them with your many creepy female impersonating accounts.

We really should have a blog post about you one of these days.

[Zoloft]

I'd like to have a Skype with you and Eric in November, two months before the San Diego Writers conference, and develop a clean elevator pitch and a ten-minute synopsis. I'm willing to try again at the conference in January. I'll even set up two one-on-one meetings with an agent and a publishing house rep.
If Eric is willing to spend $1000 on travel, lodging and conference fees, I'll run him around the show and he can attend classes on how to make the book commercially viable and pitch it as well.

[Zoloft]

I'd like to have a Skype with you and Eric in November, two months before the San Diego Writers conference, and develop a clean elevator pitch and a ten-minute synopsis. I'm willing to try again at the conference in January. I'll even set up two one-on-one meetings with an agent and a publishing house rep.
If Eric is willing to spend $1000 on travel, lodging and conference fees, I'll run him around the show and he can attend classes on how to make the book commercially viable and pitch it as well.

[The Joy]

Content posted on WTLG is not meant to be discussed on this forum. Without going into details, I was rebuked for mentioning one of their discussions here.

Sad that there's bad blood between the sites. My "many islands" theory of having multiple Wikipedia criticism communities working alone and together has apparently been debunked.

[Kelly Martin]

Content posted on WTLG is not meant to be discussed on this forum. Without going into details, I was rebuked for mentioning one of their discussions here.

Sad that there's bad blood between the sites. My "many islands" theory of having multiple Wikipedia criticism communities working alone and together has apparently been debunked.

Disappointing. Definitely puts a hamper on my interest in participating there as well as here; I don't want to have to compartmentalize my criticism of Wikipedia like that.

[The Devil's Advocate]

Content posted on WTLG is not meant to be discussed on this forum. Without going into details, I was rebuked for mentioning one of their discussions here.

Sad that there's bad blood between the sites. My "many islands" theory of having multiple Wikipedia criticism communities working alone and together has apparently been debunked.

I take it you mean you were rebuked over there? That is something I kind of understand given that their forum is locked out of public view for the moment and you linked the thread.

[The Joy]

Content posted on WTLG is not meant to be discussed on this forum. Without going into details, I was rebuked for mentioning one of their discussions here.

Sad that there's bad blood between the sites. My "many islands" theory of having multiple Wikipedia criticism communities working alone and together has apparently been debunked.

I take it you mean you were rebuked over there? That is something I kind of understand given that their forum is locked out of public view for the moment and you linked the thread.

Yes, I was rebuked over there. There is no policy there about sharing outside their forum yet, but the rebuker (is that a word?) has mentioned a need for such a policy against leaks. I'm not sure what their plans are or why Peter D. let me in if there was such distrust between the two sites. I have no idea what I've done to piss them off so badly. I expect I'll get a written response... or a ban.

Edit: I've asked for my WTLG account to be removed. It's not going to work out and what I've been told there has hurt and angered me deeply. Good luck with their endeavors. I will not be a part of it.

[greyed.out.fields]

Perhaps once they get past being upset at us for not working hard enough to publish their book, they can move on and actually do something meaningful. Time will tell, I suppose.

I am curious if they have given up on the book or not. For Damian it might create complications for him now that he is back on Wikipedia given the book's content, but I'm not sure how they would approach that if it were professionally published.

Do you really think Peter cares more about what the Wikipediots think of him than he does about telling the story of Wikipedia?

He's not like you.

I always find it amusing when a sysop and bureaucrat with over 28,000 edits across WMF sites calls his fellow wikipedia insiders "Wikipediots".

Well they are, to be fair. They are all idiots.

Inevitably...

[The Adversary]

Content posted on WTLG is not meant to be discussed on this forum. Without going into details, I was rebuked for mentioning one of their discussions here.

Sad that there's bad blood between the sites. My "many islands" theory of having multiple Wikipedia criticism communities working alone and together has apparently been debunked.

Disappointing. Definitely puts a hamper on my interest in participating there as well as here; I don't want to have to compartmentalize my criticism of Wikipedia like that.

But you already do: you participate in at least one forum which is not public, and which is used for criticism of Wikipedia.

Why is it wrong to have another such forum?

[Zoloft]

I'm not going to criticize the new forum. It's a pain in the behind to manage one. I will suggest that a clear notice that the contents are private would reduce confusion.

[The Adversary]

I'm not going to criticize the new forum. It's a pain in the behind to manage one. I will suggest that a clear notice that the contents are private would reduce confusion.

I absolutely agree with you on that.

[Peter Damian]

I'm not going to criticize the new forum. It's a pain in the behind to manage one. I will suggest that a clear notice that the contents are private would reduce confusion.

I absolutely agree with you on that.

It was not stated that the contents are private. I dislike any kind of secrecy, which is different from not having the forum visible, yet. Members can use their own judgment.

It is still in beta. If it works out, I will move it to a separate domain. Otherwise not.

[The Joy]

I'm not going to criticize the new forum. It's a pain in the behind to manage one. I will suggest that a clear notice that the contents are private would reduce confusion.

I absolutely agree with you on that.

It was not stated that the contents are private. I dislike any kind of secrecy, which is different from not having the forum visible, yet. Members can use their own judgment.

It is still in beta. If it works out, I will move it to a separate domain. Otherwise not.

I see now. My apologies for my outburst. I wish the best for your forum.

[Kelly Martin]

But you already do: you participate in at least one forum which is not public, and which is used for criticism of Wikipedia.

Why is it wrong to have another such forum?

I'm not saying it's wrong. What I am saying is that I have no interest in participating in it. Most of what I write here on Wikipediocracy is intended to be shared with the public, and indeed communicating wit the public is my main purpose for participating here. Since, apparently, nothing that is said on this other forum is intended to be shared with the public, it offers me absolutely nothing of value, and thus I will not participate in it.

[Auggie]

yes good luck with that!

[The Joy]

yes good luck with that!

My understanding is that the forum as it is now is more of a brainstorming forum that will eventually launch into a more public project... I think? That may explain the current rules of not discussing the forum topics in public. It's not fully ready yet.

At any rate, for the foreseeable future, I'm just trying to observe there and not be seen.

[Auggie]

My understanding is that the forum as it is now is more of a brainstorming forum that will eventually launch into a more public project... I think? That may explain the current rules of not discussing the forum topics in public. It's not fully ready yet.

At any rate, for the foreseeable future, I'm just trying to observe there and not be seen.

More brainstorming
Kudos to you for having the energy to listen to this.